Jillian Becker and Christopher Hitchens were both outspoken secularists, but their atheism had rather different tones, priorities, and intellectual styles.
Becker’s atheism is generally more restrained, philosophical, and rooted in skepticism about ideology itself. Much of her writing focused on the dangers of absolutist belief systems — whether political, revolutionary, or religious. She tended to see religion less as a cosmic evil than as one example of humanity’s tendency toward dogma, irrational certainty, and authoritarian thinking. Her secularism is often connected to Enlightenment rationalism and liberal humanism.
Hitchens, by contrast, became one of the central figures of the “New Atheist” movement. He was not merely an atheist but what he called an “anti-theist” — someone who believed religion was actively harmful to human freedom and progress. He argued that religion was “violent, irrational, intolerant” and hostile to free inquiry. (Wikipedia) His book God Is Not Great made the case that religion “poisons everything.”
A few important differences stand out:
1. Tone and Temperament
-
Becker was analytical and cautious.
-
Hitchens was combative, theatrical, and polemical.
Hitchens loved public debate and rhetorical confrontation. Becker generally wrote in a quieter, more reflective mode.
2. Focus of Criticism
-
Becker often examined ideology broadly — Marxism, terrorism, fanaticism, revolutionary utopianism, and religious extremism together.
-
Hitchens focused much more directly on religion itself, especially organized religion and monotheism.
For Hitchens, religion was uniquely dangerous because it sanctified irrational authority. (Wikipedia)
3. Political Dimension
Both were deeply concerned about totalitarianism and Islamist extremism, and both defended liberal democratic values.
However:
-
Becker approached these subjects as a historian and analyst of extremism.
-
Hitchens approached them as a public intellectual and moral crusader.
After 9/11, Hitchens became especially focused on Islamism as a threat to secular civilization. (Wikipedia) Becker shared concerns about extremism but was usually less sweeping in her denunciations of religion as such.
4. View of Human Nature
Becker often implies that the deeper problem is the human desire for certainty and belonging. Religion is one manifestation of that tendency.
Hitchens sometimes seemed to regard religion itself as the principal culprit — a system that corrupts morality and suppresses intellectual freedom.
5. Relation to Humanism
Both were secular humanists in a broad sense, but Becker’s work tends to preserve more sympathy for the existential and psychological role religion has played in human life. Hitchens admired some religious art and literature, but he was far harsher toward religion institutionally and morally.
One could say:
-
Becker’s atheism is closer to skeptical liberal humanism.
-
Hitchens’s atheism is closer to militant Enlightenment anti-clericalism.
Hitchens wanted to defeat religion in argument; Becker was more interested in understanding why human beings repeatedly fall into systems of unquestioned belief.